DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues on page 8-9 that the amendments clarify the transitioning to the secondary user mode to include the secondary user with a corresponding QoS parameter reduction parameter that degrades a performance and causes dissatisfaction. Pope provides a switch between profiles where one profile has reduced display but Pope’s reduced display is not “degraded” performance as the reduced display is optimally sized.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and a new ground s of rejection is presented following an updated search.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues on page 8-9 of the remarks that Pope does not teach a secondary mode where ongoing use after a duration triggers the reduction, see “predetermined duration.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and a new ground s of rejection is presented following an updated search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (“Hunter”) (US 20160330084 A1) in view of Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter teaches:
An electronic device comprising: a display; a memory having stored thereon at least one application and a secondary user mode control module for controlling the electronic device; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display and to the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the control module, which enables the electronic device [¶0157 “at least two or more electronic devices […] computer”] to:
transition the electronic device to operate in a secondary user mode of operation [¶0157 mode for when child uses the device considered secondary mode, agreement monitor is activated as in Figure 39 ¶0129], wherein the electronic device is configured to be used by a secondary user who is not a primary user [¶0057 used by a child, as opposed to a parent, considered a primary user as in ¶0149, as the primary user can be any user of any device and there is no direct relationship between the primary user and the device], the secondary user having a corresponding secondary user profile with an associated quality-of-service (QoS) parameter reduction that degrades a performance on the electronic device and causes dissatisfaction of the secondary user with further usage of the electronic device [¶0157, device configured to be throttled for child corresponding to a profile i.e. configuration for that user, ¶0003 “For example, throttling may be utilized to continue to provide a functional device and/or access to information such as websites or TV channels, albeit with at least partially decreased or at least partially increased capabilities or functionality, e.g., at a reduced rate or lower resolution/brightness/audio quality than maximum” thus causing dissatisfaction], the secondary user mode of operation being different from a normal mode of operation for the primary user and which does not include the QoS parameter reduction [¶0157 secondary mode on one device for child to throttle after a time is different from a mode for a parent on e.g. another device which enforces the throttle see ¶0050, Figure 39, ¶0211, other device not specified as being throttled for parent]; and generate a QoS parameter reduction from the normal mode of operation for at least one QoS parameter in response to the electronic device operating for a predetermined duration in the secondary user mode of operation [¶0157, throttle after a time spent on the device for the child, reducing resolution from normal to lower quality].
Hunter teaches transitioning to a mode on a device for QoS reduction but does not teach from a normal mode for a primary user on the same device.
Pope teaches the secondary user mode of operation being different from a normal mode of operation, which is provided for the primary user and which does not include the QoS parameter reduction [¶0442, profile may switch between adult and child profiles on same device, ¶0451 different QoS parameters for different users, no indication of QoS parameter for adult i.e. primary user in normal mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a device having multiple accounts. Li teaches a QoS reduction technique which may be entered for any of multiple users, and it would have been obvious to specify multiple user accounts as in Pope ¶0437 to allow multiple users and function restrictions based on the profile.
Regarding claim 3, Hunter-Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor reduces a QoS parameter selected from a group that comprises: a resolution of the display, a brightness of the display, and a size of a video window that is rendered on the display [Hunter ¶0157, device is throttled for child profile, ¶0003 “For example, throttling may be utilized to continue to provide a functional device and/or access to information such as websites or TV channels, albeit with at least partially decreased or at least partially increased capabilities or functionality, e.g., at a reduced rate or lower resolution/brightness/audio quality than maximum”].
Regarding claim 8, Hunter-Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1.
Hunter teaches a QoS reduction on a device but does not teach transitioning based on finger print.
Pope teaches further comprising at least one biometric input mechanism, wherein the at least one processor: monitors for entry of a biometric authentication input of a primary user [¶0442 fingerprint scan determines child or adult user]; and reactivates the display and returns the electronic device to a primary user mode of operation in response to a biometric authentication of the primary user while the electronic device is in one of a secondary user mode of operation or a false shutdown mode [¶0442, ¶0451 set to default when adult profile determined based on fingerprint scan reactivating the display, which may occur after false shutdown see ¶0719].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a device switching accounts based on a biometrics input. Hunter teaches QoS reduction in a profile and it would have been obvious to specify switching accounts based on e.g. fingerprint as in Pope who teaches ¶0443 this allows the device to select class-based profiles based on fingerprint.
Regarding claim 11, see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 13, see similar rejection for claim 3 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 16, see similar rejection for claim 8 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 20, see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (“Hunter”) (US 20160330084 A1) in view of Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) and Li et al. (“Li”) (WO 2016095353 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hunter-Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor reduces the at least one QoS parameter after the predetermined duration of usage time by the secondary user and [Hunter ¶0157, throttle after a time spent on the device for the child, reducing resolution from normal to lower quality].
Hunter teaches reducing QoS parameter but no in increments.
Li teaches reducing in increments [Li ¶0050 and ¶0057, wherein a first increment reduces brightness by a predetermined value, a second changed increment reduces to zero i.e. turns off the screen].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify reducing in increments. Hunter teaches reducing a parameter and it would have been obvious to specify reducing in increments as in Li who teaches this allows for preventing too much power consumption ¶0005.
Regarding claim 12, see similar rejection for claim 2 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (“Hunter”) (US 20160330084 A1) in view of Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) and Lee et al. (“Lee”)(US 20080016544 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hunter-Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1.
Hunter teaches controlling a screen for QoS reduction but does not teach random pauses of playback.
Lee teaches wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor causes random pauses in playback of a video that is rendered on the display [Figure 1 shows display, ¶0034-36 teaches pauses in the playback of video, “when the attention of the user is distracted to other places, the display system of the present embodiment automatically pauses displaying the video” corresponding to random pauses in playback].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of pauses in the reduction of QoS. Hunter teaches altering the screen parameters and it would have been obvious to specify pausing playback as in Lee ¶0036 so as to achieve the purpose of saving electric power and preventing the user from missing the video content.
Regarding claim 14, see similar rejection for claim 4 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (“Hunter”) (US 20160330084 A1) in view of Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) and Devara et al (“Devara”) (US 20130143504 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hunter-Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a network interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and which enables the electronic device to connect to a network and download content being consumed at the electronic device [Hunter ¶0118 access the internet and websites known to include downloaded content, see ¶0128].
Hunter teaches a data connection that is throttled as in ¶0128 but not causing latency.
Devara teaches and wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor induces an artificial network latency in the electronic device that negatively affects a consumption of the content [¶0057, device enters low power mode corresponding to QoS parameter reduction, “Quality of service (QoS) or the speed of wireless activities of the UE can be tailored by a user. For instance, while putting the modem in idle may save power, in some cases it can decrease QoS by adding latency to content downloads” thus latency created negatively affecting consumption].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of QoS reduction results in latency as in Devara. Hunter teaches throttling the connection which results in a reduced rate as in ¶128 and it would have been obvious to specify this would create latency as in Devara in order to save power ¶0057.
Regarding claim 15, see similar rejection for claim 5 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-7, 9-10, 17-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights